Here in Ohio, the primary election played out a lot like it did in other states, where the Republican turnout was a lot higher than for the Democrats. In addition to the higher interest in the Republican presidential primary, I also believe that we had another element in play here too: strategic voting on the part of unaffiliated voters and also some Democrats to cross over to the Republican primary and vote for John Kasich, as a way of preventing Donald Trump from winning Ohio and keep him from winning Ohio’s delegates to the Republican convention. Kasich’s win will doubtless make it more difficult for Trump to amass enough delegates to win the nomination. But just losing Ohio will not make this impossible for Trump, only more difficult, and increases the chance for a brokered convention where the establishment attempts to hand the nomination to someone else; or extract some kind of concessions from a media celebrity with narcissistic personality disorder. Which way it goes depends on whether Trump gets enough delegates for a first ballot win.
The flip side of this strategic voting on the part of some unaffiliated voters and Democrats in voting for Kasich in the Republican primary is that it could well have cost Bernie Sanders in the Ohio primary. I saw accounts on a Facebook group affiliated with the Sanders campaign where members reposted some of their friends’ posts about the election. These folks had made a decision to vote in the Republican primary for Kasich in order to stop Trump. To paraphrase what one poster said “I love Bernie Sanders, and I look forward to voting for him/it would be great to vote for him in the general election. But we have to stop Trump, so I’m voting for Kasich.” I also saw other anecdotes on my news feed about this; one friend said that “a record number of Democrats are crossing over to vote for Kasich to stop Trump”. The final confirmation of this as a thing, for me, is a friend who called me last night and told me he had voted in the Ohio Republican primary for Kasich. He spoke about how Trump scared him— he thought Trump reminded him of a fascist and had fascistic tendencies. He felt like he had to vote for Kasich to stop Trump from being the Republican candidate. I think he is an unaffiliated voter— not maintaining a consistent party affiliation in primary elections. (I don’t like the term “independent voter”— it covers over the fact that people have political leanings even if they don’t have a formal party affiliation.)
My friend didn’t really say how he would have voted if Trump were not running. He did say how he thought Kasich, Clinton and Sanders would all make good candidates in the general election. But given Sen. Sanders’ appeal to unaffiliated voters, which made the difference in his victories in the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, a decision by unaffiliated voters and Democrats to vote in the Republican primary instead of the Democratic primary likely denied Sen. Sanders a lot of votes in Ohio, possibly even a win. The vote count in yesterday’s primaries, compared with 2008, seems to confirm that strategic voting was a factor.
| Party | 2008 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 2386945 | 1201950 |
| Republican | 1136668 | 1952345 |
| Total | 3523613 | 3154295 |
source: Ohio Secretary of State, official 2008 primary results and unofficial 2016 results
It seems doubtful that strategic voting will come into play in upcoming states. The first element you need is a state that has an open primary where Democratic or unaffiliated voters could vote in the Republican primary. The only places that fit that picture remaining on the calendar are Wisconsin and Indiana. The other element you need is a candidate who is able to appeal to the voters as an alternative to Trump. Kasich and the Ohio primary was an anomaly— since he’s been our governor for 5 years, he is well known and actually has a favorable approval rating. He doesn’t have the same visibility outside of Ohio, and would probably have to campaign intensively in Wisconsin and Indiana to get the same kind of result as in Ohio.
I would class Kasich’s win as that of an old-time “favorite son” candidates. Favorite sons were prominent political figures in a state that would run for President in order to influence the eventual nominee and the party platform at the convention. They were not really viable as presidential candidates who could win the nomination, but they would use the delegates pledged to them to negotiate with the party nominee in exchange for supporting him. The last time Ohio had a native son winning the primary was Jim Rhodes in 1964.